American Literature #5/ A Dark-Brown Dog / Being Humane

Being Humanistic

             The word humane has an extremely positive denotative and connotative meaning to it. In Merriam-Webster dictionary, it defines the word humane as having compassion, sympathy, or consideration for humans or animals. As an example sentence, it states: “It’s not humane to treat animals that way.” If it is accurate to put the word “humane” as being human-like, then most of people using the word “humane” would have to think that it is an inherent characteristic of human beings to have “compassion, sympathy and consideration towards humans or animals.” The short story “A Dark-Brown Dog” by Stephen Crane rebuts this common belief by accusing the human atrocity done towards nature, and how there is no clear difference in humanity and bestiality

             One way of identifying domesticated or animals is looking for bells, leashes, collars and accessories. These materials are cultural symbols that enable people to differentiate animals that are civilized and animals that are not. This is the reason why the fact that the dog had “a short rope……dragging from his neck” becomes important. It indicates that the dog is already domesticated. Even though there is no owner who leashes the dog, from the fact that dog does not show active rejection towards his leash it can be deduced that the dog is domesticated to its heart.

             The taming makes the dog weak and submissive. The rope itself enacts as an obstacle for the dog acting freely: “Occasionally he trod upon the end of it and stumbled.” The dog “trips upon it and fall forward”. The rope is what makes the dog get dragged inside the house eventually as well. Not only that, the dog does not resist to oppression that he receives unjustly when the father hits him with various materials. The unusual slave stance that the dog takes can be seen from the factor that the dog was domesticated before taken into the family.

             The materials that the father uses to violently treat the dogs can be thought as cultural symbols as well. The dog is hit with “very large saucepan” and “coffee -pot”. It is ironical that such savagery is done with highly developed gadgets of modern civilization. No matter what the development might be, its usage is decided by the human, which in this case was savagery.

             The child uses “a small stick” that he finds when beating the dog. The beatings by the child are not threatening to the dog. He just endures it, unlike the sever ones by the father. The child is less exposed to the human civilizations, so even though he may show “humane” characteristics of violence, the severity is clearly low. It is symbolized through the level of the used tools: “a small stick”. A stick is not made by high-technology. Not only that, the child has sympathy to protect the dog, unlike the father.

             Stephen Crane gives a euphemistic sting towards the arrogance that many have about themselves. No matter how advanced our inventions might be, we use it for beating animals. If humans are not humane, what should we do? Should we “burst into a long, dirgelike cry?”

Comments
Jung Yoonjo: So sad I didn't get to read your main points. But I think your essay is often to a great start. Good luck.
Han Jonghyun: Awesome introduction! I am very curious on how this reflection would lead onto! Please post the finished version on your blog so that I can read it!
Seungwon: This is a completely different approach to the story than what most of us did. Analysis of the dog's perspective! I love the idea. Please go on, I am curious how this would end up with.
Sol Kim: Very interesting approach. I think your experiment  of stick to the family intended a negative connotation. Not negative maybe, but something related to instinct. Nice introduction, and I expect more from your blog. I'm interested in all the other papers that you wrote. 
Soyeon Min: I think your essay needs more development. You must have ran out of time and so dies anyone. While it is conventional wisdom that quality is over quantity, it is impossible to produce any quality with such small quantity. I hope you develop further.

American Literature #4/ To Build a Fire / A Face Drawn in Sand

A Face Drawn in Sand

             What makes men so significant? Or are they so special in the first place? For people who think men are, what differentiates men and beast would be consciousness and reason. Unlike animals, men have the power to determine what they would do, instead of being swayed by environments. By deciding which action they will take, they shape themselves, determining who they are through divine free will.

             In order to prove this claim, there should be a clear distinction between environment and a subjective individual. Environment may or may not influence an individual’s action, but it should be done to an ignorable or limited extent. If there is a substantial amount of intervention from the environment, it is hard to say that there is a clear distinction between what is inside or outside an individual. The contention bulges out when one realizes that he is nor free man or self-determining. If the environment determines human behavior, how can there be free will or a subjective individual? Philosopher Michele Foucault thereby declares that the concept of Men shall be erased “like a face drawn in sand at the edge of the sea”.

             Jack London seems to depict the same theme in the short story “To Build a Fire”. From the beginning, the protagonist is described as a confident and arrogant man. He does not “meditate upon his frailty as a creature of temperature.” Instead of fearing the nature, he puts his position above his actual status in nature. For himself, he may be a keen traveler who overcame natural hardships; nonetheless he is nothing more than a vulnerable animal. The protagonist executes his macho traits by criticizing the wise old-timer as “rather womanish”. This statement goes in accordance with the man’s forceful approach towards nature. Instead of embracing or subduing, the man goes against it and faces utter destruction. The end of his life shows the weakness of human in the face of nature.

             However, the vulnerability only functions as groundwork for an underlying theme. In course of dying, the man makes miserable attempts for survival. He is busy trying to adapt to the mightiness of nature. There is no intelligent man who brings light and heat to the uncivilized nature in this story. Desperate for warmth, the man tries to ignite fire by pulling twigs from a tree. This gives the tree “imperceptible agitation”, and makes it to pour snow over the feeble fire that man had put all his hope on. The effort he had made to ignite the fire was intense; the act of poking mosses and gathering twigs were rather miserable. Nowhere in his frantic attempts is human dignity. He strives for survival, not by reason and sanctity.

             The traditional story for man versus nature is how man overcomes nature using reason. However, “To Build a Fire” pictures a man whose actions are confined to only resist against the environmental threats raised by nature. Not a single action in the story was done without a relationship to nature’s power.  This story seems to raise a point that men are only animals named humans, nothing more nothing less. What more can be done to a face drawn in sand?


Comment


Ko Haeuk: I see that this time you had considerably less time to work on the paper, which left us some space to write comments. I think you were trying to mention that Londo was putting arrogant views before the 18th century into the man. I agree. But I don't see where you are going with the human being swayed by the environment I think men won't be swayed if he is so full of himself., I liked the part with subjectivity. 


Hyunseok Lee: It was great to see some quotes and literal evidences to support your claim. Also I liked you brought the topic  which wasn't discussed deeply in class. Even though I strongly agree to the point that described mankind as an arrogant creature, I'm not sure on the claim that nature and men are in hostile relationship. In my opinion, existence between nature and men cannot be described as hostile. They exist just as itself, there is a cold weather and there is men. But they are not meant to be in a different relationship. I understand your time limits, but I want you to think more that it is possible to say that human and nature can be not hostile.